marno21 wrote: » Imagine if the Bay Area was in Ireland how limited transport options would be.
ncounties wrote: » When will we actually see contractors onsite on the Kildare and Maynooth lines? Apologies if its already been stated, just a lot of activity on here in recent weeks.
CatInABox wrote: » We've currently got nowhere to store any new carriages. The location for the new depot is out in Maynooth. No point electrifying the Kildare line if the trains can't get from Maynooth onto the Kildare line
Rulmeq wrote: » Do you have any info on where this is going to be? I always assumed that the area just after Hazelhatch was going to be used as a depot/storage area because there's a lot of unused space and green fields there, but I guess Maynooth has something similar (although I would have thought more limited space due to the canal)
LXFlyer wrote: » All of this has yet to be finalised. People are jumping the gun here. We haven’t even got to design stage for the DART expansion.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » perhaps put in arrangements to allow drivers change while the train is sitting in the station rather than 100m outside it.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » With the stabling/maintenance depot on Maynooth, will Fairview still be used for stabling and driver change over? Would it be beneficial to the northern line to have a passing loop at Clontarf Road to allow commuters/Enterprises overtake DARTs stopped there, giving them a clear run north? It would be easy to turn the north bound platform into an island, perhaps put in arrangements to allow drivers change while the train is sitting in the station rather than 100m outside it.
LXFlyer wrote: » Again, from an operational resilience perspective, a much longer overtaking facility located further north (ideally between Killester and Raheny) would be far more desirable. Being as close to Connolly as Clontarf Road is wouldn’t be that much use.
LXFlyer wrote: » In all likelihood there will still be, at a minimum, a stabling facility at Fairview - but again that hasn’t been spelt out in detail. Operationally, losing that would be insane. Again, from an operational resilience perspective, a much longer overtaking facility located further north (ideally between Killester and Raheny) would be far more desirable. Being as close to Connolly as Clontarf Road is wouldn’t be that much use.
LeinsterDub wrote: » It would only give them a clear run to the next DART ahead which would be a most 10 minutes down the line.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Could you explain that further for me please? I would have thought that having the overtaking section close to Connolly would be beneficial. It means, once it passes the DART, the commuter train can travel at speed up the line until it gets to it's next stop (HJ). The further north the overtake is, the more time the commuter train is constrained behind a stopping DART and less free run until it has to stop itself.
gjim wrote: » Surely you'd be aiming not to have a commuter leaving the station just after a DART in the first place? If commuters are scheduled to leave before DARTs, then a nearby passing loop will never be of benefit. While a more northerly passing loop could allow the commuter to pass a DART that had left 10 minutes before. Not sure I've explained that very well. Or you can think of the whole of Connolly as a sort-of passing loop - there's limited additional utility to having another passing loop right next to it.
LXFlyer wrote: » I do get what you’re saying, but scheduling trains is very intricate and to accurately understand this, you do have to sit down with a blank spreadsheet, sectional running times, and then path out all of the services. You also have to look at a train’s entire journey to see where the conflicts arise and what the potential knock-on effects of holding trains might me. It is a lot more complicated than most people appreciate.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Fair enough but I think examining the benefits of it would be an exercise worth doing. The reality is that there won't be extra track between Killester and Raheny for a long time (if ever) and anything which might eek out a bit more flexibility on the line for little cost needs to be considered.
The trains will be compatible with the existing DART network overhead power supply of 1500v DC (i.e. current draw, traction profile under acceleration and re-generation) and also with the power supply for the proposed extension sections.
CatInABox wrote: » Does anyone know which power supply the new Dart Expansion will use yet?
Sam Russell wrote: » I think that the Metrolink will use 1500 V, rather than the 750 V used by Luas. It would be natural that the Dart expansion would be 100% Dart standard.
cgcsb wrote: » The loses aren't the main reason. For dc the substations have to be closer together a long the route, every 2 or 3km. With ac the substations can easily be 25km apart
Last Stop wrote: » I don’t think it has to be ac. Given the most likely line to be electrified is quad track they could have an up down up down configuration instead of the current up up down down.
Kevtherev1 wrote: » Article published in relation to Transport in the 2020 Budget. Confirming funding to build the Pelletstown train station. Continuing Green Line capacity enhancement and metrolink costs.https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-to-get-new-train-station-and-longer-luas-trams-955902.html
LXFlyer wrote: » Good luck to anyone trying to board a train at Pelletstown inbound during the morning peak until the new DART rolling stock arrives which at this rate could be 5 years away. Ludicrous to even think of opening it until the line is electrified and rolling stock delivered. Or maybe only serve it off-peak until that happens.
